Urban/rural Ireland...where are we going?

#15 · 01-03-2012 6:45pm

BluntGuy wrote: »

I agree with your latter point, it's not always clear-cut what the optimum size of school is. However I am talking about schools which would have ~30-60 pupils. Even in Finland with its noted excellence in smaller class sizes at primary and secondary level, the average primary school size is in the order of thrice that.

Yes, that is true. But about 30% of their schools are 3/4 teacher schools. That's a significant percentage.

I agree that we will be taking the thread way off topic if we continue down this route! I was just making a brief point, that's all

BluntGuy · 01-03-2012 7:28pm

jmayo wrote: »

Yes the Western Rail corridor is a bad idea since it might only be of use to a few people and is thus a waste of money.

What's even worse is that the ~€100 million could have done so much more in that region, the success of the greenways project in boosting tourism and revitalising local areas is a testament to that.

However the basis on which that project was campaigned for by groups such as WOT was so-called "balanced regional development". Many of the arguments were "Dublin has _____", or "Look at the cost of the DART, sure look you're getting a great deal lads" without rational appraisal. It was just "we want a railway because Dublin has one".

All of those decisions were made because of poor politics, poor management and poor planning, not because people live in the countryside as intimated by a previous poster.

And as someone that is mod of the forums you are, you surely have to agree on those points.

I agree on all of the examples you raised. The M50 widening is costing us 1 billion, the Luas BXD, 300 million, the original Luas overrun costs greatly, the Dublin Port tunnel... expenses that really did not have to be incurred. Indeed, the reason the lines aren't joined lies more with vested interests in South Dublin that the PDs were pandering to, than trying to appease a more rural-orientated electorate.

However, a large part of the reason, in general ,that these projects were built half-heartedly, the reason Dublin has a broken rail network with key projects like Metro North and DART Undeground in the toilet, is that the government tends to pay lip service to the urban specific demands. At no point over the last decade has the government looked like it was seriously committed to delivering the "Metro North" for example. A project of such size and expense, could never be debated on its benefits at a national level because to many people it simply reinforced the "Dublin gets everything" narrative - which is obviously electorally damaging.

Therefore it can be argued that the needs of cities, in particular Dublin, are not being adequately responded to, because the politicians see the electorate as a whole as being more rurally-orientated, and that by placing more emphasis on the needs and wants of rural areas they are more likely to win votes. The lack of local taxation facilitates this. Because all the money slushes about in a central fund from which all is paid for, you could argue it is almost inevitable people will feel hard done by when they see other places getting more services than them, when they see themselves paying the same amount into the same pot, regardless of whether the facts of the matter give merit to this view or not.

Actually how many schools exist nowadays where you have a couple of dozen children.
As something the mods on this fourm are quick to demand, can you back up those statements ?

I linked a graph showing the number of teachers per school from which a reasonable inference can be made about the number of small schools. We can reasonably state that a school with 1-2 teachers is typically not going to have more than 30-60 pupils, when factoring in the other data on class sizes. Further explanation of that graph along with other statistics is available here:

http://www.education.ie/admin/servlet/blobservlet/des_educ_trends_chapter04.htm#hd04_09

I did state that the number of these schools was declining and the graph clearly shows this. But in 2006 there were 521 schools with only two teachers which is hardly a small number. As stated before though this isn't the biggest problem facing our education system, and I don't want to drag this thread off on a tangent.

But is that the fault of people living outside the urban areas, as the previous poster appears to actually believe ?
Basically the poster is blaming people because of their ancestry.
If the poster had said that about a race, a relgious group or sex they would done for being xenophobic, racist, etc.

To be fair I think he was simply stating that because urbanisation (or suburbanisation or whatever term you wish to use) is a relatively new phenomenon here, people might still have an emotional attachment to the countryside, or a mindset that neuters to an extent their desire to push for urban improvements.

As to whose fault it is the cities have insufficient infrastructure, it's the fault of many people. It's the fault of people with a sense of entitlement who feed into a parochial system of politics, and the fault of politicians for not breaking from that cycle. It's the fault of city authorities with their atrocious planning policies which encourage outward sprawl rather than as another poster articulated earlier in the thread, making the city centre more dense. ABP contribute to this by turning down numerous proposals with heights above their preferences, leaving us polluted with ugly mid-sized 6 storey rubbish. The problem of city needs not being responded to adequately isn't something on which I'd blame one single group. There are many reasons.

But that point leads us to the whole problem with the way the country has been developed.
We are lopsided.
Instead of having a few major urban areas we have one big one.

A large part that is caused by the joke that is the national spatial strategy. Rather than funnelling appropriate sized investment into select regional centres, we have a complete free for all situation where whoever shouts loudest wins. This system is laughably labelled "balanced regional development". How is Galway meant to become a competitive city when the funds are spread so thinly. You have to pick areas you are going to concentrate investment. Someone will complain that's unfair, but unless you do that we're going to go nowhere. Ireland is a small country and every city except Dublin is small in an international context, we have to plan being cognisant of that reality.

If there is to be a counterweight to Dublin, it will have to be Cork, and regional funds will have to be concentrated on that city, as well as Galway and Limerick. The same arguments about rural/urban will crop up there.

@Liam, I think it was "Godge" who referred to Limerick as a "mid-sized town" or such. I don't think it was meant to be disparaging, simply that if you even look across to the UK, there are many towns of similar size to Limerick. Very few of them would have received €600 million tunnels either, along with the M7/M20 motorway upgrades. Indeed, even now work is being carried out upgrading the M7/N24 junction, and improvements to the University if I'm not mistaken are either in planning or being carried out.

jmayo · 01-03-2012 7:37pm

BluntGuy wrote: »

What's even worse is that the ~€100 million could have done so much more in that region, the success of the greenways project in boosting tourism and revitalising local areas is a testament to that.

However the basis on which that project was campaigned for by groups such as WOT was so-called "balanced regional development". Many of the arguments were "Dublin has _____", or "Look at the cost of the DART, sure look you're getting a great deal lads" without rational appraisal. It was just "we want a railway because Dublin has one".

I agree on all of the examples you raised. The M50 widening is costing us 1 billion, the Luas BXD, 300 million, the original Luas overrun costs greatly, the Dublin Port tunnel... expenses that really did not have to be incurred. Indeed, the reason the lines aren't joined lies more with vested interests in South Dublin that the PDs were pandering to, than trying to appease a more rural-orientated electorate.

However, a large part of the reason, in general ,that these projects were built half-heartedly, the reason Dublin has a broken rail network with key projects like Metro North and DART Undeground in the toilet, is that the government tends to pay lip service to the urban specific demands. At no point over the last decade has the government looked like it was seriously committed to delivering the "Metro North" for example. A project of such size and expense, could never be debated on its benefits at a national level because to many people it simply reinforced the "Dublin gets everything" narrative - which is obviously electorally damaging.

Therefore it can be argued that the needs of cities, in particular Dublin, are not being adequately responded to, because the politicians see the electorate as a whole as being more rurally-orientated, and that by placing more emphasis on the needs and wants of rural areas they are more likely to win votes. The lack of local taxation facilitates this. Because all the money slushes about in a central fund from which all is paid for, you could argue it is almost inevitable people will feel hard done by when they see other places getting more services than them, when they see themselves paying the same amount into the same pot, regardless of whether the facts of the matter give merit to this view or not.

I linked a graph showing the number of teachers per school from which a reasonable inference can be made about the number of small schools. We can reasonably state that a school with 1-2 teachers is typically not going to have more than 30-60 pupils, when factoring in the other data on class sizes. Further explanation of that graph along with other statistics is available here:

http://www.education.ie/admin/servlet/blobservlet/des_educ_trends_chapter04.htm#hd04_09

I did state that the number of these schools was declining and the graph clearly shows this. But in 2006 there were 521 schools with only two teachers which is hardly a small number. As stated before though this isn't the biggest problem facing our education system, and I don't want to drag this thread off on a tangent.

To be fair I think he was simply stating that because urbanisation (or suburbanisation or whatever term you wish to use) is a relatively new phenomenon here, people might still have an emotional attachment to the countryside, or a mindset that neuters to an extent their desire to push for urban improvements.

As to whose fault it is the cities have insufficient infrastructure, it's the fault of many people. It's the fault of people with a sense of entitlement who feed into a parochial system of politics, and the fault of politicians for not breaking from that cycle. It's the fault of city authorities with their atrocious planning policies which encourage outward sprawl rather than as another poster articulated earlier in the thread, making the city centre more dense. ABP contribute to this by turning down numerous proposals with heights above their preferences, leaving us polluted with ugly mid-sized 6 storey rubbish. The problem of city needs not being responded to adequately isn't something on which I'd blame one single group. There are many reasons.

A large part that is caused by the joke that is the national spatial strategy. Rather than funnelling appropriate sized investment into select regional centres, we have a complete free for all situation where whoever shouts loudest wins. This system is laughably labelled "balanced regional development". How is Galway meant to become a competitive city when the funds are spread so thinly. You have to pick areas you are going to concentrate investment. Someone will complain that's unfair, but unless you do that we're going to go nowhere. Ireland is a small country and every city except Dublin is small in an international context, we have to plan being cognisant of that reality.

If there is to be a counterweight to Dublin, it will have to be Cork, and regional funds will have to be concentrated on that city, as well as Galway and Limerick. The same arguments about rural/urban will crop up there.

@Liam, I think it was "Godge" who referred to Limerick as a "mid-sized town" or such. I don't think it was meant to be disparaging, simply that if you even look across to the UK, there are many towns of similar size to Limerick. Very few of them would have received €600 million tunnels either, along with the M7/M20 motorway upgrades. Indeed, even now work is being carried out upgrading the M7/N24 junction, and improvements to the University if I'm not mistaken are either in planning or being carried out.

A lot of good points that I agree with, but don't have the time to debate at the moment.

Nice to see you are having a measured logical debate on this matter, rather than saying it is ALL THE FAULT OF THEM LOT and thus to some of us coming across as someone looking down their nose at "culchies".

Tipp Man · 01-03-2012 7:46pm

This might not be a bad idea

With the rest of the country being "so poor" our roads would fall to pieces in no time without the hugely benevolent people of Dublin paying "their subsidies" to maintain them

This means that the Dubs will then be much less likely to come down the country as their flashy BMW's and Mercs won't appreciate the 3 foot deep potholes that would ensue. They might actually stay inside the pale where they belong

Every cloud...

murphaph · 01-03-2012 7:52pm

jmayo wrote: »

A lot of good points that I agree with, but don't have the time to debate at the moment.

Nice to see you are having a measured logical debate on this matter, rather than saying it is ALL THE FAULT OF THEM LOT and thus to some of us coming across as someone looking down their nose at "culchies".

I think you're the first person on the thread to mention "culchies". Can I bring "Jackeens" into it as well?

Liam Byrne · 01-03-2012 7:55pm

BluntGuy wrote: »

@Liam, I think it was "Godge" who referred to Limerick as a "mid-sized town" or such. I don't think it was meant to be disparaging,

Disparaging / factually incorrect or whatever; it was pathetic and showed that facts were not going to be part of the debate.

BluntGuy wrote: »

Very few of them would have received €600 million tunnels either, along with the M7/M20 motorway upgrades.

You do realise that you are contradicting yourself ? On the one hand you're acknowledging that Limerick should - along with Galway - get proper investment, and in the next you're saying the above.

Indeed, even now work is being carried out upgrading the M7/N24 junction, and improvements to the University if I'm not mistaken are either in planning or being carried out.

"work" (which will things worse) is being done on the N24 junction because it was planned arseways in the first place due to the lack of necessary funds.

If you want to compare a half-assed and ill-advised installation of traffic lights with the provision of a new lane for the M50, then go right ahead.

And should I point out that that "urban" junction is further from the city centre than I am ? Are you classing it as urban ?

Finally, the actual new M7 ring road that that junction spans was only required due to the usual disastrous urban planning; the old ring road was inexplicably ruined by disastrous planning permission given to retail parks which made the road unfit for purpose.

And yet some of you would have us answerable to the idiots that reclassify such green belts and ring roads (after, of course, their cronies buy them at "agricultural land" prices)

I wouldn't trust them with my surroundings in a million years!

Let me ask you this - how many people in urban areas do you know that will be able to help save the environment by parking near enough to their own dwelling to plug in their electric car ?

John_Rambo · 01-03-2012 8:01pm

Liam Byrne wrote: »

As someone with the suburbs 1.5 miles away and who seems to fall under the OP's definition of urban, I would benefit if the resources were used to provide proper facilities within this area and not the more remote ends of the county, but I'm not that selfish.

Fair enough and I agree, if you want to live outside the infrastructure, you're gonna have to pay for it. And... it looks like it's going to be through the nose for some unfortunates. I already know two people regretting decisions made during the boom, large houses, loads of rooms and bathrooms (weirdly), bills are rising, household tax looming (probably set to increase per sq metre) fuel costs soaring etc... Exactly the stuff discussed in other threads.

Tipp Man wrote: »

They might actually stay inside the pale where they belong

Not gonna happen tipp man, I have seen parts of Tipp you don't know exist!

Liam Byrne · 01-03-2012 8:25pm

John_Rambo wrote: »

Liam Byrne wrote: »

As someone with the suburbs 1.5 miles away and who seems to fall under the OP's definition of urban, I would benefit if the resources were used to provide proper facilities within this area and not the more remote ends of the county, but I'm not that selfish.

Fair enough and I agree, if you want to live outside the infrastructure, you're gonna have to pay for it.

I'm not sure what you're agreeing with; at no stage did I suggest that people should pay extra. People in rural areas have already paid for a lot of their own services (septic tanks, water supply) and pay extra for their fuel, bins, electricity, etc; we also don't obviously have the option of foregoing a car because there is no public transport, meaning that the increased costs of fuel and road tax and NCT are not optional luxuries as they would be in a city.

Indeed, while DART and Luas could be viewed as successes, the fact that the M50 was upgraded in preference to providing additional facilities means that the urban utopia of public transport isn't even in the minds of most of those who can avail of it, let alone anyone else.

BluntGuy · 01-03-2012 8:40pm

Liam Byrne wrote: »

You do realise that you are contradicting yourself ? On the one hand you're acknowledging that Limerick should - along with Galway - get proper investment, and in the next you're saying the above.

I absolutely am not. That Limerick has received far more in funds than an average similar sized town/city in the UK, does not in any way contradict the point that resources should be focussed on building up Cork, and to a lesser extent Galway and Limerick as urban centres. Cork's urban infrastructure in particular has been chronically under-invested in. Galway's necessary bypass project has not been built. The N17 has not been sorted out and unless PPP funds are found for the motorway, this will remain the case for the foreseeable future.

Crucially what's lacking in all three is a coherent policy and implementation of building up those urban areas. Indeed we have the opposite happening in Limerick, with the City and County councils set to be merged. We can see in Cork, that the city population is declining with most of the growth in suburban areas. The docklands project in Cork offers a rare example of intelligent thinking and vision but lack of funding has sadly put that on halt and the parts which can be progressed have been subject to arguments between the councils.

My example of Limerick getting more than the average UK town of a similar size, was to discredit the "Dublin gets everything" notion. There are many towns which have also received far more than they might be expected to receive in the UK. It may have been better to talk about, for example Tullamore, so as not to confuse the issue, but as your location states Limerick, I felt that more appropriate.

It doesn't contradict any of my points, indeed the fact that it has received those funds and is still not performing to its potential showcases exactly my point that we are not serious about developing our urban areas. Limerick got much of those funds not because the politicians there were serious about developing Limerick as a city, but because they won votes. The evidence is clear: the city centre of Limerick is in many parts a joke. The bus system is a joke. Urban planning as you allude to in your next point, is a joke.

If you want to compare a half-assed and I'll-advised installation of traffic lights with the provision of a new lane for the M50, then go right ahead.

Was I comparing it?

And should I point out that that "urban" junction is further from the city centre than I am ? Are you classing it as urban ?

It's largely for the benefit of "urban Limerick" as it enables access to and from the city. But I think you're being a bit pedantic on this point Liam.

Finally, the actual new M7 ring road that that junction spans was only required due to the usual disastrous urban planning; the old ring road was inexplicably ruined by disastrous planning permission given to retail parks which made the road unfit for purpose.

Indeed, I'm hardly going to disagree with you. For similar reasons, for example, the Clonmel bypass will need to be bypassed again. But you're actually supporting my point, we are not serious about developing our urban areas properly. Sprawl, not developing public transport

Let me ask you this - how many people in urban areas do you know that will be able to help save the environment by parking near enough to their own dwelling to plug in their electric car ?

I actually don't understand what you're asking here, nor do I see how it's relevant.

Liam Byrne · 01-03-2012 9:02pm

BluntGuy wrote: »

I absolutely am not. That Limerick has received far more in funds than an average similar sized town/city in the UK,

Why compare it to a "similar sized town" in the UK, though ? Why not compare it to the UK's third largest CITY in order to compare like with like ?

Or else go the whole hog in the direction that you're trying and decide which "similarly sized town" to Dublin in the UK got a BILLION euro not to create a bypass, but to add ONE LANE, not to mention the toll buyout and the development of the Luas and DART ?

Edit : Just to be helpful - Glasgow, Birmingham or Leeds are of comparable sizes to Dublin, so you can use those.

You can't argue it both ways; either Dublin is comparable to London with Limerick comparable to the third largest city, or else both should be comparable to similarly sized towns.

Galway's necessary bypass project has not been built. The N17 has not been sorted out and unless PPP funds are found for the motorway, this will remain the case for the foreseeable future.

.....as will any motorway or rail line that doesn't nonsensically spoke towards Dublin. You're suggesting that commerce and transport infrastructure be relegated to provide a bypass for a city that decided to sprawl because too many people moved there.

I'd be more interested in ensuring that all cities were properly interconnected to allow for transport and tourism. Rosslare is not easily accessible, forcing transport through - surprise surprise - Dublin Port.

Indeed we have the opposite happening in Limerick, with the City and County councils set to be merged.

Long overdue due to the fact that the Greater Limerick Area has the industrial estates and businesses and retail parks, and no sensible planning is being done. Limerick COUNTY COUNCIL has completed the suburban bus lane, which then ends when it hits the city boundary because the city planners haven't a clue! Imagine that - a county council that's more progressive than the city one!

My example of Limerick getting more than the average UK town of a similar size, was to discredit the "Dublin gets everything" notion.

Your example is farcical for the reasons outlined above. Show me where a "similar size town" in the UK got anywhere near the funding that Dublin has ?

There are many towns which have also received far more than they might be expected to receive in the UK.

Yes. Dublin being one of them, if you insist on your "similar size town" parallel instead of comparing first, second and third cities. But you haven't done that because that consistency would undermine your argument completely.

the city centre of Limerick is in many parts a joke. The bus system is a joke. Urban planning as you allude to in your next point, is a joke.

At least we agree in something; and since all those are jokes, why in God's name would anyone want to live there ?

And should I point out that that "urban" junction is further from the city centre than I am ? Are you classing it as urban ?

It's largely for the benefit of "urban Limerick" as it enables access to and from the city. But I think you're being a bit pedantic on this point Liam.

I am, based on the many farcical references to "middle of nowhere" and "isolation" in this thread despite me being far far nearer than Leixlip or Maynooth.

But you're actually supporting my point, we are not serious about developing our urban areas properly. Sprawl, not developing public transport

Which is why not living in a city is a no-brainer for me.

Let me ask you this - how many people in urban areas do you know that will be able to help save the environment by parking near enough to their own dwelling to plug in their electric car ?

I actually don't understand what you're asking here, nor do I see how it's relevant.

Because city living is unsustainable and unplanned. If we all went to electric cars tomorrow I can park on my driveway and charge my car overnight; I would suggest that 60% of city and suburban dwellers could not.

Which is more sustainable and forward-thinking now ?

BluntGuy · 01-03-2012 9:42pm

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Why compare it to a "similar sized town" in the UK, though ? Why not compare it to the UK's third largest CITY in order to compare like with like ?

Because you know it's not like with like. The third largest CITY in the UK, has many multiples of Limerick's population. As said:

Ireland is a small country and every city except Dublin is small in an international context, we have to plan being cognisant of that reality.

Or else go the whole hog in the direction that you're trying and decide which "similarly sized town" to Dublin in the UK got a BILLION euro not to create a bypass, but to add ONE LANE, not to mention the toll buyout and the development of the Luas and DART ?

The billion euro has done more than add one lane Liam, you know this. It paid to remove the toll booths and to upgrade many of the junctions, as well as add a further auxillary lane in some parts. I've already agreed previously on the thread that if the M50 had been built properly in the first place such expenditure would not have been necessary.

You can't argue it both ways; either Dublin is comparable to London with Limerick comparable to the third largest city, or else both should be comparable to similarly sized towns.

I never compared Dublin to London though.

Your metric is disingenuous. Find me a "town" of 500,000-600,000 with a metropolitan population of over 1 million in the UK, then.

I'd be more interested in ensuring that all cities were properly interconnected to allow for transport and tourism. Rosslare is not easily accessible, forcing transport through - surprise surprise - Dublin Port.

I'm all for the link between Cork and Limerick, which has unfortunately been deferred.

Your example is farcical for the reasons outlined above. Show me where a "similar size town" in the UK got anywhere near the funding that Dublin has ?

Compare Dublin to Glasgow which is of a similar size and you'll quickly appreciate how underpowered our public transport network is. But you want me to find a similar-sized town, because it suits your argument based on semantics.

Yes. Dublin being one of them, if you insist on your "similar size town" parallel instead of comparing first, second and third cities. But you haven't done that because that consistency would undermine your argument completely.

I'm not comparing the 1st, 2nd and 3rd cities because it makes no sense to do so. Why would I compare Limerick to a city with multiple times its population? Why would I compare Dublin to a city with multiple times its population?

One has to compare settlements of a similar size when making these comparisons. You're trying to get me to use a system of comparison which makes no sense, based on semantics and irrelevant rankings.

I am, based on the many farcical references to "middle of nowhere" and "isolation" in this thread despite me being far far nearer than Leixlip or Maynooth.

References I didn't make, nor imply. I feel like you're replying to me as though I'm attacking you personally, which I'm not.

I want to work out the bits we can agree on and then debate out the parts we don't.

Because city living is unsustainable and unplanned. If we all went to electric cars tomorrow I can park on my driveway and charge my car overnight; I would suggest that 60% of city and suburban dwellers could not.

Which is more sustainable and forward-thinking now ?

City living is unsustainable and unplanned if it's allowed to progress as a messy sprawl. On what basis do you think 60% of city and surburban dwellers wouldn't be able to do this though?

John_Rambo · 01-03-2012 10:04pm

Liam Byrne wrote: »

I would suggest that 60% of city and suburban dwellers could not

You are so unbelievably off the mark Liam. How you came to that figure just shows you what you know about Dublin.

murphaph · 01-03-2012 10:40pm

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Indeed, while DART and Luas could be viewed as successes, the fact that the M50 was upgraded in preference to providing additional facilities means that the urban utopia of public transport isn't even in the minds of most of those who can avail of it, let alone anyone else.

FFS Liam, people use the M50 etc. because public transport in Dublin is sh!te (Cork fairs even worse). The 3 initiatives taken to really improve public transport have all proven hugely popular: DART in 1984 (half finished, the Maynooth line was supposed to also be electrified and the line to Tallaght was supposed to be built, none of which happened), the Luas (hugely oversubscribed to the extent it requires no operating subsidy which is unusual for public transport anywhere) and indeed the couple of genuinely Quality bus corridors (46A for example). So, given a choice, Dubliners at least will jump at the chance of using public transport, if it can get them to work in any sort of reasonable time frame.

The M50 forms the hub of Ireland's entire motorway network. It would need to be the width it is regardless. There are still wider motorways in Belfast btw

murphaph · 01-03-2012 10:50pm

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Edit : Just to be helpful - Glasgow, Birmingham or Leeds are of comparable sizes to Dublin, so you can use those.

Well, if you're gonna bring Glasgow into it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2lIfubhHZDQ

For those not interested in that 3 part 30 minute video, it was made in the late 1970's and discusses Glasgow's integrated transport system, that absolutely knocks the spots off Dublin's excuse for one. Glasgow achieved this decades ago, and we are still dithering about building up our cities at all, for fear the politicians might upset the rural vote (and it's clear from this thread that they are easily upset: the mere mention of cities holding on to more of their generated wealth has driven many here ballistic).

Birmingham also does the business. I've never been to Leeds so can't comment.

murphaph · 01-03-2012 11:00pm

Liam Byrne wrote: »

.....as will any motorway or rail line that doesn't nonsensically spoke towards Dublin. You're suggesting that commerce and transport infrastructure be relegated to provide a bypass for a city that decided to sprawl because too many people moved there.

What do you think would the reaction have been in Cork and Limerick had the NRA decided to prioritise the M20 over the M7 and M8? The fact is that most Dubs don't use nor need the spoked motorways. It's non-Dubliners that they mostly serve. Dublin port lies directly across from Holyhead, which is motorway (effectively) connected (the A55 is largely built to motorway standards). This means goods sent via Dublin port get to the UK market faster as they are straight onto a motorway in Wales.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

I'd be more interested in ensuring that all cities were properly interconnected to allow for transport and tourism. Rosslare is not easily accessible, forcing transport through - surprise surprise - Dublin Port.

See above: Fishguard and Pembroke are not motorway connected. The M4 stops well short of both of them. Rosslare itself is well connected to the Eastern Seaboard and anyway, is not the only port besides Dublin...there's Cork and Waterford (Belview) as well as some smaller ports along the East Coast and of course there's the NI ports.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Your example is farcical for the reasons outlined above. Show me where a "similar size town" in the UK got anywhere near the funding that Dublin has ?

See my videos about Glasgow above. Similar population, similar size, far superior infrastructure.

goose2005 · 01-03-2012 11:12pm

Liam Byrne wrote: »

You can't argue it both ways; either Dublin is comparable to London with Limerick comparable to the third largest city, or else both should be comparable to similarly sized towns.

Glasgow, Birmingham and Leeds are not capital cities or major ports. If Limerick were in the UK it would be about the 80th biggest town, smaller than Crawley or Exeter.

.....as will any motorway or rail line that doesn't nonsensically spoke towards Dublin. You're suggesting that commerce and transport infrastructure be relegated to provide a bypass for a city that decided to sprawl because too many people moved there.

"Too many people moved there" because Ireland utterly failed to develop its other cities into places that companies would want to set up or young people would want to move.

I'd be more interested in ensuring that all cities were properly interconnected to allow for transport and tourism. Rosslare is not easily accessible, forcing transport through - surprise surprise - Dublin Port.

Rosslare is a tiny town in the SE corner of the country; much of what comes in at Dublin is bound for Dublin, the west, Northern Ireland, N Leinster, etc., all of which are closer to Dublin than Rosslare and thus cheaper.

Because city living is unsustainable and unplanned. If we all went to electric cars tomorrow I can park on my driveway and charge my car overnight; I would suggest that 60% of city and suburban dwellers could not.

That's an utterly ludicrous statement. Living at high population densities is far more sustainable, more efficient and less environmentally damaging than living at low densities. It allows for more coherent planning and better overall service delivery.

The main reason the rest of the country does so poorly is that every town/county wants its own stuff. Kerry/Waterford people, for example, wouldn't listen if told that Cork city's expansion would help their region; they're not interested if it's more than 10 miles away. Decentralisation is a good example - if the civil service had been moved, one third to Cork and one third to Limerick it would have been a real shot in the arm, but as it was every tiny town had to get a few, and it was all spread too evenly, too thinly.

Godge · 01-03-2012 11:52pm

BluntGuy wrote: »

.

@Liam, I think it was "Godge" who referred to Limerick as a "mid-sized town" or such. I don't think it was meant to be disparaging, simply that if you even look across to the UK, there are many towns of similar size to Limerick. Very few of them would have received €600 million tunnels either, along with the M7/M20 motorway upgrades. Indeed, even now work is being carried out upgrading the M7/N24 junction, and improvements to the University if I'm not mistaken are either in planning or being carried out.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Disparaging / factually incorrect or whatever; it was pathetic and showed that facts were not going to be part of the debate.

Yes, it was me and the main comparison I was making was with Dublin 15. As for facts, you should know by now that I don't make such comparisons without some basis in fact. So here we go.

http://www.cso.ie/en/media/csoie/census/documents/Tables.pdf

Page 28 gives populations by constituency.

Dublin West (99% Dublin 15) is 117,126, Limerick City is 102,121.

Table 1 on page 21 gives a figure for Limerick City as 56,779. Fingal is 239,992 of which Dublin 15 is at least half.

Those are the facts. But hey let's compare Limerick to the UK.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_United_Kingdom_settlements_by_population

If we take the 102,121 figure we get either St. Helens or Woking. Have heard of Woking but don't know the other one.

56,779 is equivalent to Hereford or Dartford but smaller than Bangor in Northern Ireland or Rhondda in Wales, not to mention Maidenhead or Margate.

Now Dublin, 1,187,176, gosh we won't include Bray or Maynooth, Leixlip or Dunboyne, we will just stick to the city. It is bigger than all except London. So let us look at Birmingham, the second city.

http://www.networkwestmidlands.com/train93/NetworkMap.aspx

Rail looks healthier than Dublin.

http://www.networkwestmidlands.com/metro/trammap.aspx

They have a metro as well, dublin's is stopped.

http://www.networkwestmidlands.com/web/FILES/BirminghamWEB.pdf

buses look great.

So to sum up, Liam, I am happy to stick with the facts. I have shown that Dublin is worse off than Birmingham which is smaller than Dublin, maybe you could demonstrate how Limerick is worse off than Maidenhead or Bangor? Look, the facts show that it is not disparaging, factually incorrect or whatever to show that Limerick is smaller than Dublin 15 and is comparable to great cities like Maidenhead or Bangor.

Show me I am wrong and I will concede the point.

Liam Byrne · 02-03-2012 2:17am

Bluntguy wrote:

Compare Dublin to Glasgow which is of a similar size and you'll quickly appreciate how underpowered our public transport network is. But you want me to find a similar-sized town, because it suits your argument based on semantics.

Incorrect. I was requesting that people who kept comparing Limerick to "similar sized towns in the UK" be consistent and compare Dublin to a similar sized town; since Limerick is a city, the semantics weren't mine - the issue was comparing similar-sized population areas, which is why I put the misnomer in question in quotation marks; you are introducing your own red herring by taking it literally and missing the point in the process.

I clearly highlighted 3 options.

Those cities may well have decent transport, however the thread is about the allocation of resources, and I would gladly concede if Glasgow or Leeds has had a proportional level of expenditure on their infrastructure based on the UK's larger population and tax take.......since Dublin has had a billion spent on it in the example outlined, and since the UK population (and therefore tax take and resources) is over 12 times the size of Ireland, the valid comparison is whether 12 billion was spent on the transport system in Glasgow or Leeds.

I would even doubt that a direct one-for-one billion was spent on it, but if anyone has exact figures then I'm all ears.

All I'm asking is for people to compare like with like honestly and openly.

And to be fair to Bluntguy yes - you didn't compare Dublin with London, so not everything I said was directed solely at you.....but as you can see from subsequent posts above, some other people are happy to view "capitals" as somehow equivalent while trying to minimise the relative and equivalent comparisons, which is a dishonest tactic to bolster their argument.

Liam Byrne · 02-03-2012 2:23am

Godge wrote:

Yes, it was me and the main comparison I was making was with Dublin 15. As for facts, you should know by now that I don't make such comparisons without some basis in fact.

Well then don't use the word "town" when talking about a city, because it is factually incorrect, disparaging and undermines your argument since it does come across as refusing to accept facts.

Don't shoot the messenger for pulling you up on it.

Liam Byrne · 02-03-2012 2:28am

City living is unsustainable and unplanned if it's allowed to progress as a messy sprawl. On what basis do you think 60% of city and surburban dwellers wouldn't be able to do this though?

Most urban houses and apartments have insufficient parking as it is (one car space for a three-bedroom house if you're lucky, or else parking is an extra paid-for arrangement with a multi-story down the street; many terraced houses have no parking spot at all and people have to park in footpaths.

How do you propose that those people plug in their cars at night, to their own electricity supply ?

MadsL · 02-03-2012 7:49am

Liam Byrne wrote: »

How do you propose that those people plug in their cars at night, to their own electricity supply ?

As they live in cities perhaps they won't need to, charging their cars at fast cycle charging stations or at work. Or perhaps on street as they park.

Having sufficient population density to support such schemes will mean that they won't have to rely on something as quaint as having to plug your car into your own supply.

Anyway, car-sharing schemes will mean that the concept of 'owning' a car will be viewed as rather backward and 'culchie'.

Was rather baffled recently when I saw the plans for the revised Smithfield parking, the architect looked rather put out when I asked him why, since they had put 3 phase power into Smithfield, they hadn't included one or six charging stations at the top of the square.

Those shaping our future unfortunately have minds shaped by the past...

John_Rambo · 02-03-2012 9:51am

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Most urban houses and apartments have insufficient parking as it is (one car space for a three-bedroom house if you're lucky, or else parking is an extra paid-for arrangement with a multi-story down the street; many terraced houses have no parking spot at all and people have to park in footpaths.

How do you propose that those people plug in their cars at night, to their own electricity supply ?

60%.... you're just coming up with numbers off the top of your head Liam. How many people in Dublin do you know that have to park their car in a multi story car park down a street?? Never heard of this, most apartment blocks have underground parking with power that could easily have retrofitted metered points, or a compressed air point. A lot of the terraced houses you talk about have lanes and sheds at the back, a lot of people have knocked those sheds if they are to small to park a modern car in the back. Again, it would be easy to retrofit a lockable power or air point an the pavement. A lot of people in flats in the city centre don't have cars, they bike it or use public transport. Cycling is huge in Dublin too, thousands of people cycle in and out of work.

murphaph · 02-03-2012 10:14am

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Most urban houses and apartments have insufficient parking as it is (one car space for a three-bedroom house if you're lucky, or else parking is an extra paid-for arrangement with a multi-story down the street; many terraced houses have no parking spot at all and people have to park in footpaths.

How do you propose that those people plug in their cars at night, to their own electricity supply ?

Ideally, when a city has adequate public transport, one doesn't need a car to begin with. Here in Berlin I don't bother with one, having always had either a car or motorbike in Dublin, given my commute was not possible with any degree of ease on Dublin's crap public transport "network". I pay €600 a year for my public transport ticket that allows me to use all modes all day and night. My bus route runs 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. My S Bahn line (like DART) runs 24 hours at weekends and only stops from 1am to 4am during the week, when a bus replaces it! Cities in Germany and pretty much everywhere else in Europe get the infrastructure they need. Why are Irish cities the exception?

Fr Tod Umptious · 02-03-2012 10:44am

murphaph wrote: »

Ideally, when a city has adequate public transport, one doesn't need a car to begin with. Here in Berlin I don't bother with one, having always had either a car or motorbike in Dublin, given my commute was not possible with any degree of ease on Dublin's crap public transport "network". I pay €600 a year for my public transport ticket that allows me to use all modes all day and night. My bus route runs 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. My S Bahn line (like DART) runs 24 hours at weekends and only stops from 1am to 4am during the week, when a bus replaces it! Cities in Germany and pretty much everywhere else in Europe get the infrastructure they need. Why are Irish cities the exception?

To answer the specific question in bold I think it is just a case of history.

Germany has been an industrialized and rich nation for well over 100 years, and the infrastructure that you see today has been build up over that time.

Ireland on the other had has only been rich since 13th July 1994 or there abouts and thus the infrastructure has not developed at the same rate.

Godge · 02-03-2012 10:50am

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Well then don't use the word "town" when talking about a city, because it is factually incorrect, disparaging and undermines your argument since it does come across as refusing to accept facts.

Don't shoot the messenger for pulling you up on it.

I said Limerick was a large town by UK standards. I then got numbers for population centres in the UK. At best Limerick is comparable to Woking or St. Helens, both of which are large towns.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woking

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St_Helens,_Merseyside

In reality it may be closer to smaller towns as I demonstrated in a previous post. So while Limerick may be designated a city, in real terms of size, it is a large town.

Liam Byrne · 02-03-2012 11:00am

Godge wrote: »

I said Limerick was a large town by UK standards.

But Limerick isn't in the UK, and Dublin is "a tiny capital city by UK standards", except UK standards are irrelevant in this country.

In reality it may be closer to smaller towns as I demonstrated in a previous post. So while Limerick may be designated a city, in real terms of size, it is a large town.

"may be" ? :rolleyes: You really, really don't handle facts that you dislike well, do you ?

Breathe deeply, clear your mind and say it : Limerick IS a city.

Tipp Man · 02-03-2012 11:09am

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

To answer the specific question in bold I think it is just a case of history.

Germany has been an industrialized and rich nation for well over 100 years, and the infrastructure that you see today has been build up over that time.

Ireland on the other had has only been rich since 13th July 1994 or there abouts and thus the infrastructure has not developed at the same rate.

Well this is it in a nutshell

You can't expect Ireland which only experienced prosperity in the last 20 odd years to have the same infrastructure as Germany or UK etc who have spent all of the 20th century developing their systems. And this prosperity has proved to be short lived so it will have a direct effect on infrastructural programmes

Infrastructure is an asset and as any business person will tell you asset building takes a long time - no different for a country

Liam Byrne · 02-03-2012 11:17am

goose2005 wrote: »

Liam Byrne wrote: »

You can't argue it both ways; either Dublin is comparable to London with Limerick comparable to the third largest city, or else both should be comparable to similarly sized towns.

Glasgow, Birmingham and Leeds are not capital cities or major ports. If Limerick were in the UK it would be about the 80th biggest town, smaller than Crawley or Exeter.

Oh, so we're saving Dublin from the direct comparison because it's a "capital city" now ?

Or is it because it's a "major port" ?

As I said, the lengths some people will go to on this thread to avoid comparing like with like and suit their own agenda is a joke.

Either (a) compare by size or (b) compare by status.....don't mix and match; or if you do, don't expect me to bother debating based on mix-and-match statistics.

As for the reference re charging points, I said that I "would guess", and - unlike some in this thread - I am open to correction.

Anyway, I don't believe that anyone will be convinced to change their predefined bias (and in some cases, outright prejudice), and the suggestions outlined by the OP - given that they're based on just "taking" natural resources from other counties while keeping all their own - is hilarious! Or would be, if it weren't being proposed on a more serious part of boards than AH.

OssianSmyth · 02-03-2012 11:55am

Industrialisation boosted cities but a high tech economy will do so further. The key resource for high-tech companies is specialised staff, so both these high value staff and these companies locate in cities to reach each other. The dream of a nation of teleworkers has not materialised: physical proximity is still important.

Ireland is steadily urbanising. The UN tracks urbanisation here:
http://esa.un.org/unpd/wup/index.htm

Dublin City Council's recent report on demographics takes this data to look at urbanisation in Ireland vs the world.

http://www.creativedublinalliance.ie/assets/2012/02/Dublin-Demography-Report-Jan-2012.pdf

There has been come success in densifying parts of Dublin but overall the pattern is sprawl. Irish cities other than Dublin have been in population/density decline for years.

Energy prices may force more rapid urbanisation in future.

Poor urban transport effectively limits the available workforce. If you site a company in Coolock, you can't expect to employ someone from Rathfarnham because the journey time by private or public transport is too long. So the available population to be workers or customers of a firm is less than the city population. Dublin loses strength in this way.

At this time of record low construction costs and record high unemployment, the state has chosen to halt all urban public transport projects. Instead the money is spent on things like subsidising RTE (€196m/year) to luxuriate in its 30 acre campus in Dublin 4. These are the spending choices that society makes. When the economy begins to grow again and the city gridlocks, this is when people will start to think about planning public transport in Dublin again.

murphaph · 02-03-2012 11:56am

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Either (a) compare by size or (b) compare by status.....don't mix and match; or if you do, don't expect me to bother debating based on mix-and-match statistics.

Comparisons by size work fine. Glasgow and Birmingham are similar sizes to Dublin but have immeasurably better public transport and general infrastructure.

Irish politicians raced to build the inter urban motorway network so they could "satisfy" the rural vote. Then the money (largely generated by the cities) ran out and now the cities have nothing much to show for it.

As for the "Germany have infrastructure because they had time" argument...we had 20 years of boom to start an underground line, even just one underground line in Dublin...never happened. Dublin (and Cork for sure) have been absolutely starved of the infrastructure they need as modern European cities, while motorways have been built apace.

Godge · 02-03-2012 1:19pm

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Oh, so we're saving Dublin from the direct comparison because it's a "capital city" now ?

Or is it because it's a "major port" ?

As I said, the lengths some people will go to on this thread to avoid comparing like with like and suit their own agenda is a joke.

Either (a) compare by size or (b) compare by status.....don't mix and match; or if you do, don't expect me to bother debating based on mix-and-match statistics.

As for the reference re charging points, I said that I "would guess", and - unlike some in this thread - I am open to correction.

Anyway, I don't believe that anyone will be convinced to change their predefined bias (and in some cases, outright prejudice), and the suggestions outlined by the OP - given that they're based on just "taking" natural resources from other counties while keeping all their own - is hilarious! Or would be, if it weren't being proposed on a more serious part of boards than AH.

I compared Dublin to Birmingham earlier in this thread providing links to maps of Birmingham's public transport system (I didn't provide links to Dublin's, maybe I should) Birmingham, smaller than Dublin, had an immeasurably better public transport system.

As for comparing like to like, Limerick is comparable to large towns like Woking or Maidenhead or somewhere like that.

jmayo · 02-03-2012 1:32pm

murphaph wrote: »

I think you're the first person on the thread to mention "culchies". Can I bring "Jackeens" into it as well?

Ehh no I wasn't, but fire ahead call yourself whatever.

Leafing through the posts, too bloomin many to individually answer, the crux of our problems is not that people live in countryside versus city/town, it is all down to poor long term planning strategies, the way our political system works looking at short term goals and the pi** poor implementation of projects when they do go ahead.

There is a need and justification for the M50 and motorways interconnecting major urban areas (i.e. cities in Irish terms) .
But there is also a need for a major public transit system within the greater Dublin area in particular.
What did we get but half ar**ed projects that involved huge wastage of public money and questionable cosy sweetheart deals with private sector entities that gave them cash cows at the peoples expense.

There should be 4 major urban areas that are capable of attracting investment that leads to jobs and ultimately population growth.
Dublin would be the primary with Cork, Limerick and Galway next in line.
Deciding to just develop Dublin at the expense of everywhere else is only going to lead to more problems down the road.

We also have to view the other cities relative to Dublin in an Irish context, not in terms of Britain or anywhere else.

Liam Byrne · 02-03-2012 1:54pm

murphaph wrote: »

Comparisons by size work fine. Glasgow and Birmingham are similar sizes to Dublin but have immeasurably better public transport and general infrastructure.

OK - so now we're actually comparing like with like....good.

Now, let's get back to YOUR core point, which was related to resources and spending power, not what was provided.

Was a billion spent on Glasgow or Birmingham (or, as I said - taking the UK's proportional / relative extra revenue into account, 12 billion :eek: ?)

Is it simply that ridiculously over-budget projects in this country have swallowed up the available capital spending, ensuring that the other worthwhile stuff doesn't get off the ground ?

As myself, jmayo and Bluntguy have already highlighted, is it that the existing monies spent on the ill-thought-out "ring" roads (conveniently passing cronies' "agricultural" land which suddenly gets rezoned, necessitating a further-out "ring ring road") just gets wasted completely as a result ?

Foghladh · 02-03-2012 2:24pm

I don't think anybody could argue the case that rural living is as economical as an urban environment when it comes to providing like-for-like services. Patently it can't be. Where the population is spread further apart it will cost more to connect them be it with roads or services. High density will be of more economic sense than low density everytime. The question I suppose is whether economic value should be striven for at the cost of forcing people to abandon the rural lifestyle.

And that's what it would be a case of. It's easy to say that people can continue to live in their chosen environment. But if services are withdrawn or downgraded to a particular community as the price of maintaining higher standard services to a larger group, then that's tantamount to forcing that smaller group to move.

Is that a good thing? Well, it's a predictable response you'll get I suppose. People already living in cities will proclaim yes, people with homes and properties outside the city will shout no. As I've posted earlier, I personally think it will gradually happen anyway but hopefully to a more dispersed urban network which can network off each other.

murphaph · 02-03-2012 2:29pm

Liam Byrne wrote: »

OK - so now we're actually comparing like with like....good.

Now, let's get back to YOUR core point, which was related to resources and spending power, not what was provided.

Was a billion spent on Glasgow or Birmingham (or, as I said - taking the UK's proportional / relative extra revenue into account, 12 billion :eek: ?)

Is it simply that ridiculously over-budget projects in this country have swallowed up the available capital spending, ensuring that the other worthwhile stuff doesn't get off the ground ?

As myself, jmayo and Bluntguy have already highlighted, is it that the existing monies spent on the ill-thought-out "ring" roads (conveniently passing cronies' "agricultural" land which suddenly gets rezoned, necessitating a further-out "ring ring road") just gets wasted completely as a result ?

My core point is actually about how political representation is lacking for urban areas, hence the half hearted urban infrastructure. I assert that a properly functioning executive mayor for Dublin (and certainly Cork) would and should be able to make major improvements to the cities' infrastructure, IF the cities were allowed to keep more of their wealth.

Saying "Dublin got a billion and wasted it" is a silly argument: these projects were largely driven by national agencies or state bodies (NRA, RPA) not by a directly elected mayor with responsibility for Dublin. I could equally argue that none of the inter urban motorways should have been built due to cost over runs on the earlier schemes.

Balmed Out · 02-03-2012 2:53pm

You seem to think its a completely one way system. You always mention Cork and Dublin cities. What about rural Cork. Its pharmaceutical industries include most of the worlds major players. As a spin off most of these compnaies have commercial / financial offices in Dublin. Were one nation and in my book its important that we try to develop the entire country. Up till recent times rural Ireland was pretty much ignored, we had to invest in what would pay back most and quickest. That doesnt mean that areas benefiting from that should cast off everywhere else.
As an aside there are plenty of urban schools with pupil numbers in the mid 20's or less and plenty of rural schools where its in the early thirties.

Liam Byrne · 02-03-2012 2:54pm

murphaph wrote: »

My core point is actually about how political representation is lacking for urban areas, hence the half hearted urban infrastructure. I assert that a properly functioning executive mayor for Dublin (and certainly Cork) would and should be able to make major improvements to the cities' infrastructure, IF the cities were allowed to keep more of their wealth.

They don't need to "keep more of [sic] their [/sic] wealth" if they didn't waste it.

murphaph wrote: »

Saying "Dublin got a billion and wasted it" is a silly argument: these projects were largely driven by national agencies or state bodies (NRA, RPA) not by a directly elected mayor with responsibility for Dublin. I could equally argue that none of the inter urban motorways should have been built due to cost over runs on the earlier schemes.

No, that wouldn't be "equally arguing" at all; what you could argue is that the other required projects nationwide can't be built due to the ridiculous cost overruns to date, and you'd be right.

fly_agaric · 02-03-2012 4:11pm

Germany has been an industrialized and rich nation for well over 100 years, and the infrastructure that you see today has been build up over that time.

Ireland on the other had has only been rich since 13th July 1994 or there abouts and thus the infrastructure has not developed at the same rate.

Well this is it in a nutshell

You can't expect Ireland which only experienced prosperity in the last 20 odd years to have the same infrastructure as Germany or UK etc who have spent all of the 20th century developing their systems.

Not to "Godwin" this thread but... didn't some fellow with a mustache start a war in which alot of Germany's infrastructure was reduced to rubble in the mid 20th century?
Can anyone deny that Dublin's public transport system 2011 is poor given 15 years of an economic boom and even longer with structual funds available from Europe?

Tipp Man · 02-03-2012 4:14pm

fly_agaric wrote: »

Not to "Godwin" this thread but... didn't some fellow with a mustache start a war in which alot of Germany's infrastructure was reduced to rubble in the mid 20th century?

Indeed, but this allowed them to start from scratch with a blank canvas so to speak

Foghladh · 02-03-2012 4:25pm

@murphaph

Let's assume that there was a decision to set-up a Greater Dublin Authority, complete with an elected mayor, city representitives etc.
What level of autonomy would you like to see the authority holding? What services would you like to see handed over? What revenue streams would be assumed by the new body?

AlekSmart · 02-03-2012 8:57pm

murphaph wrote: »

Cities in Germany and pretty much everywhere else in Europe get the infrastructure they need. Why are Irish cities the exception?

I may well be wrong here,but I suspect it's because we're......."Different"

Foghlagh:Let's assume that there was a decision to set-up a Greater Dublin Authority, complete with an elected mayor, city representitives etc.

In this respect it's worth recalling that the original intention was for the NTA (National Transport Authority) to be the DTA (DUBLIN Transport Authority).

It was only after quite a deal of Machievellian subtefuge that it was altered at the 11th Hour...with the most pressing alteration being the removal of strategic planning oversight from its new remit.....therein lies the tale. German's we sure ain't !!

murphaph · 03-03-2012 7:59pm

Foghladh wrote: »

@murphaph

Let's assume that there was a decision to set-up a Greater Dublin Authority, complete with an elected mayor, city representitives etc.
What level of autonomy would you like to see the authority holding? What services would you like to see handed over? What revenue streams would be assumed by the new body?

I'd propose a reduction of income tax nationally and the consequent reduction in funding to all local authorities. I would then allow local authorities to raise taxes locally based on property ownership (ie, reverting to what we had roughly in the 70's with the domestic rates). I might also allow local authorities to raise revenues by adding up to 1% on VAT. This is a common funding model for specific projects in the US and I think it's good: you can put specific projects to public vote etc.

More densely populated local authority areas would obviously be able to make their money go further. It goes without saying that local government would need a total overhaul for any of this to be possible: most county councils at present are incompetent in the extreme and I wouldn't trust them with the contents of my piggy bank.

Liam Byrne · 03-03-2012 10:30pm

murphaph wrote: »

I'd propose a reduction of income tax nationally and the consequent reduction in funding to all local authorities. I would then allow local authorities to raise taxes locally based on property ownership (ie, reverting to what we had roughly in the 70's with the domestic rates). I might also allow local authorities to raise revenues by adding up to 1% on VAT. This is a common funding model for specific projects in the US and I think it's good: you can put specific projects to public vote etc.

More densely populated local authority areas would obviously be able to make their money go further. It goes without saying that local government would need a total overhaul for any of this to be possible: most county councils at present are incompetent in the extreme and I wouldn't trust them with the contents of my piggy bank.

Given the way the thread went I never thought I'd be saying this but I agree with you.

In addition to the overhaul of county councils we would, however, also need to overhaul the welfare system COMPLETELY, ensuring that those who are on it have enough to survive and no more......charity is great if you can afford it.

If working married couples have to move home because of funding issues, then so should welfare recipients.

View · 04-03-2012 12:07am

Foghladh wrote: »

@murphaph

Let's assume that there was a decision to set-up a Greater Dublin Authority, complete with an elected mayor, city representitives etc.
What level of autonomy would you like to see the authority holding? What services would you like to see handed over? What revenue streams would be assumed by the new body?

There already is a Dublin Regional Authority with powers and functions.

I dislike the idea because for a number of reasons:
i) I believe there is a danger it (i.e. the proposed system) will usurp the county & city councils in the Dublin region (and I favour those bodies having much greater powers than they currently have).
ii) It is worth remembering the reason the old Dublin county council was broken up was that it was regarded as too unwieldy and open to corruption in the planning process (i.e. Councillors from N Dublin voted through planning exemptions in S Dublin and vice versa thus enabling all the local councillors to do an "Ah, but I voted against that in my area" line with the voters and evade responsibility for dodgy planning decisions).
iii) None of our regional, county or city councils operate a presidential system of "elected mayors" and I see no reason why it would be preferable to our existing "council with chairman" system,
iv) I see no reason why the Dublin region - but no other region, county or city - should have an "elected mayor". This is pure "exceptionalism" and there is no reason to justify it for one of our local authorities and no other.
v) Lastly, being pedantic - the title "Mayor" is usually for someone in charge of a City Council or equivalent. The appropriate title for a regional authority would be either "Chairman" or even "President" (i.e. Presiding Officer of the Authority) but not "Mayor".

This to my mind is just a badly-though out lame effort at copying London while ignoring the huge disparities that exist between London and Dublin and their governmental structures.

MadsL · 04-03-2012 7:46am

Talking of joined up thinking...

http://www.nationaltransport.ie/index.html

What have this lot achieved in 2.5 years? A nice website?

Victor · 04-03-2012 8:08am

Liam Byrne wrote: »

I was specifically referring to the joyriders and thieves that come from urban areas, and so in the correct context the phrasing is accurate.

Generalise much?

What of the joyriders and thieves that come from rural areas, who just happen to own the vehicle they are using for joyriding and their other crimes relate to property and taxes?

Liam Byrne · 04-03-2012 12:23pm

Victor wrote: »

Liam Byrne wrote: »

I was specifically referring to the joyriders and thieves that come from urban areas, and so in the correct context the phrasing is accurate.

Generalise much?

What of the joyriders and thieves that come from rural areas, who just happen to own the vehicle they are using for joyriding and their other crimes relate to property and taxes?

I've admitted that I deliberately started to generalise and twist as ridiculously as others. It was that kind of thread and at least the above statement has some basis in fact.

Strange how you only highlighted that one.

murphaph · 04-03-2012 9:17pm

View wrote: »

ii) It is worth remembering the reason the old Dublin county council was broken up was that it was regarded as too unwieldy and open to corruption in the planning process (i.e. Councillors from N Dublin voted through planning exemptions in S Dublin and vice versa thus enabling all the local councillors to do an "Ah, but I voted against that in my area" line with the voters and evade responsibility for dodgy planning decisions).

If you believe that, you'll believe anything. Dublin County Council was really broken up by Dail Eireann because it was getting too big for its boots in the minds of most TDs and they wanted to slap it down-easiest way: break it up into 3 less effective and (even) less efficient LAs.

Nowhere else, with one exception, would this have been the "solution" to any "problem". The trend in all other European capitals (that I can think of) has been to consolidate the administrative area of the city. I can think of ONE exception to this: LONDON in the 1980s! Margaret Thatcher was (similarly) getting fed up of the Greater London Council and abolished it, only for the essence of it to be returned to London under Labour 15 years later.

If they wanted to eliminate the councilors voting for each others bribed projects (and that did and arguably still does happen), they could have one head to roll for obviously corrupt decisions: the Mayor's head (btw: I just used the term Mayor for simplicity, call the office what you like, but I know that County Kildare at least (and probably others) has a "Mayor".

It should be noted that I am not for the breaking up of Ireland, but I am for more local democracy with the democratic decisions having a real effect. I am sick and tired of all taxes being collected nationally and handed to local authorities like charity grants from central government. I dare say my proposals would actually lead to better services in some rural quarters, as people everywhere would be more focused on what their taxes were actually paying for.

Tipp Man · 05-03-2012 11:08am

This thread has got to be the greatest load of rubbish i have ever heard

Look Ireland is simply too small to go dividing up into 26 tax and expenditure centres.

The USA has a land area more than 120 times that of Ireland so it makes sense that states set their own tax levels as well as cental taxes. They have dozens of cities bigger than Dublin. Their model suits them - that doesn't mean it suits Ireland

Similarly London has a population about 8 times that of Dublin - making comparisions between the 2 is futile

What Ireland needs is better value for money from its county councils, less waste and more productivity and more accountability.

We do not need every county council setting its own taxes. Of course this has nothing to do with a want for more local autonomy - lets call a spade a spade - it boils down to the fact that Dubs think they are somehow bank rolling this country and a feeling deprieved of things because "money has to go down the country".

The irony of course is that this thread was started by a person who doesn't even live in this country. Which seems to be a common trend i have noticed on boards lately - Irish people abroad (or even some non Irish) wanting to dictate how Ireland is run

jmayo · 05-03-2012 11:51am

murphaph wrote: »

I'd propose a reduction of income tax nationally and the consequent reduction in funding to all local authorities. I would then allow local authorities to raise taxes locally based on property ownership (ie, reverting to what we had roughly in the 70's with the domestic rates). I might also allow local authorities to raise revenues by adding up to 1% on VAT. This is a common funding model for specific projects in the US and I think it's good: you can put specific projects to public vote etc.

As Tippman points out some of that is frankly unworkable rubbish.
We are much too small a country to have individual tax (inparticular VAT rates) for provinces never mind counties.

Letting individual councils fiddle with tax/VAT rates is a complete joke.
Do you know what would be involved in managing such a system at the accounting level ?
Did you stop to think how so many people fled over the border to another jurisidiction when their VAT rates were much lower.
Imagine a scenario where VAT rates in Galway were 5% lower than Dublin.

Stop comparing us to the likes of the US where you have both a vastly different geographical area and population.
They can have both federal taxes and a different state tax on goods, but that is easy when the state is already the geographical size of a small European country with the population to match.
Some residents never even leave their state since it is such a large entity.
Here people often commutte daily across 4 or 5 counties in a couple of hours.

You complain about how the country and it's cities, bar Dublin, are tiny in comparison to for instance the UK, yet you come up with a lunacy plan to have individual tax rates.

Yes I do agree about the reintroduction of the residential property rates system and let the councils set the rates and then keep the money.

murphaph wrote: »

More densely populated local authority areas would obviously be able to make their money go further. It goes without saying that local government would need a total overhaul for any of this to be possible: most county councils at present are incompetent in the extreme and I wouldn't trust them with the contents of my piggy bank.

Local government needs an overhual which involves the removal of individual county and city councils.
They are unnecessary talking shops.
Install provincial councils and leave it at that.

As for comments about the NRA, it was yet another unneccessary ill functioning qungoe dreamed up to give yet more jobs for the boys and girls who were connected to the ruling parties.

We have a dept of transport which in a nation this size should surely have some function other than allowing it's ministers come up with unworkable traffic laws and regulations. :mad:

Tipp Man wrote: »

This thread has got to be the greatest load of rubbish i have ever heard

Look Ireland is simply too small to go dividing up into 26 tax and expenditure centres.

The USA has a land area more than 120 times that of Ireland so it makes sense that states set their own tax levels as well as cental taxes. They have dozens of cities bigger than Dublin. Their model suits them - that doesn't mean it suits Ireland

Similarly London has a population about 8 times that of Dublin - making comparisions between the 2 is futile
...
What Ireland needs is better value for money from its county councils, less waste and more productivity and more accountability.

Nice to see some common sense.

Urban/rural Ireland...where are we going?

Comments